JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted an application for extension of time for furnishing the bail bonds as directed by this Court vide order dated 20th November, 1987. This Court while deciding the appeal extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the petitioners and directed that the accused petitioners may be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 2,000/- each, to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. Further directions were given that the petitioner should submit the bond before the trial court within a period of two months. Directions were also given that in case the petitioners failed to do so they will have to undergo the sentence awarded by the Sessions Judge, Jhalawar. 2. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioners, submitted that out of the two petitioners one has already submitted the bonds as directed by the Court He has moved the application on behalf of Chhote Khan and submitted that the petitioner came to know about the warrant of arrest against him. Then he immediately rushed to the counsel at Jaipur and contacted him. He further submitted that on 7-5-1988, the petitioner Chhote Khan came to know about this fact of submission of the bonds under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act. It was also submitted by Mr. Gupta that the letter was dropped but, on account of unknown circumstances, accused-appellant could not receive the letter. He prayed that time granted may kindly be extended. 3. On the other hand learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application moved by the counsel for the petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the order was passed on 20th November, 1987 and the bonds were to be submitted upto 20th January, 1988. However, the petitioner failed to submit the bond. Now, he is applying in the month of May 1988, i.e. after a period of about 5 months and 20 days for the extension of time. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the application is not based on bona fide grounds. Apart from that learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that no application for the extension of time lies under Section 482 Cr.PC. Learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Gopal v. State of Rajasthan [1983 Cr.LR (Raj.) 360]. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the application is not based on bona fide grounds. Apart from that learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that no application for the extension of time lies under Section 482 Cr.PC. Learned Public Prosecutor has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Gopal v. State of Rajasthan [1983 Cr.LR (Raj.) 360]. This Court has held as under: "Their Lordships of the Full Bench after considering the pros and cons of the case come to the conclusion that time for deposit of the fine cannot be extended as it would amount to review or alteration of judgment on the point of sentence which is not within the power of the Court." 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also cited before me the Division Bench case of Allahabad High Court in Ram Lakhan and Ors. v. State 1986 Cr. LJ 617 (All) Their Lordships in para 3 of the judgment discussed the earlier judgment of Allahabad High Court and held that--"It is clear enough that by not obeying the specific directions of the Court and by postponing the the payment, without surrendering into Court, the applicants have abused the process of the Court and have tried to bypass the course of justice. The application for extension of time was rejected". 6. Mr. Gupta appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not, cited any authority before this Court and submitted that he has moved an application under Section 482 Cr.PC and this Court has jurisdiction to extend the time. 7. I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. Section 482 Cr.PC reads as under: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice." 8. Section 365 Cr.PC provides that--"save as otherwise provided by this Code or any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed the judgment or final order, disposing of the case, alter or review the same except to correct the clerical of arithmetical error. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is neither a clerical error nor an arithmetical error. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is neither a clerical error nor an arithmetical error. Extension of lime amounts to altering or reviewing the judgment delivered and signed. He has relied on the judgment of this, Court in Gopol Das's case (supra). My brother the then Hon'ble Justice Shrimal has also considered the judgment of the Punjab High Court and the Supreme Court cases while deciding the case of Gopal Das (supra). 10. I have heard the rival contention of both the parties. Under Section 362 Cr PC read with Section 482 Cr.PC only clerical or arithmetical error can be corrected. Section 362 Cr.PC is a bar and it does not authorise the Court to alter or modify the judgment. Section 482 Cr.PC only provides that the High Court may make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order passed under this Code. Thus, it only provides that the power can be exercised by the Court to give effect to the order already passed, but it does not empower the Court to alter or modify the judgment already, passed. 11. In the instant case, this Court has already passed the order that in case the bonds are not submitted within stipulated period of two months then the accused will have to undergo the sentence already awarded by the trial court. Thus the submission of the bond was a condition precedent and there was an alternative order also that in case the bonds are not submitted within two months the accused will have to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial court. If I extend the time as prayed by Mr. Gupta, then the second clause that in case the bonds are not submitted within a period of two months the accused will have to undergo the sentence awarded by the trial court goes away and it amounts to alteration or modification of the judgment. 12. For the reasons mentioned above. I am in full agreement with the view taken by my brother Justice Shrimal in the case of Gopal Das (supra). 13. In the result the application for the extension of time is hereby rejected on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time in the instant case under Section 482, Cr.PC.Application Dismissed. *******